Group challenging proposal for new casinos

John Truscott, left, president of Truscott Rossman, and James Nye, president Nye & Associates and campaign manager for Protect My Vote, discuss why they do not want an expansion of gaming operations in the state. Doug Bauman/For the Daily Tribune

A group backed in part by several existing Michigan casinos is challenging a constitutional amendment headed for the November ballot that would green-light eight new casinos in Michigan.

“It seems to me there are a lot of people trying to buy their way into the state Constitution,” said John Truscott, president of the public relations firm Truscott Rossman.

Truscott is representing Protect MI Vote, a group that appeared before the Michigan Court of Appeals this week in an effort to have Citizens for More Michigan Jobs’ proposal removed from the Nov. 6 ballot by the Secretary of State, arguing the proposal is unconstitutional.

Citizens for More Michigan Jobs submitted more than a half-million petition signatures for the November ballot to the Secretary of State in late June.

Advertisement

Protect MI Vote’s attorneys have asked for a decision from the Court of Appeals by Aug. 15.

James Nye, a spokesman for Protect MI Vote, said a 2004 constitutional amendment approved by Michigan voters that requires both statewide and local voter approval for new casinos “would be completely stricken if this proposal passes.”

The backers of the proposed constitutional amendment disagree.

“There is still a local vote,” said Emily Gerkin Palsrok, spokeswoman for Citizens for More Michigan Jobs. She said the November vote represents the statewide and local votes happening at once. “If the residents of Pontiac do not want the casino at the Silverdome or in their community, then they can exercise that right when they vote in November.”

If the ballot question receives statewide approval, Palsrok said the group would “look at each of the eight (proposed casino) locations and how the vote played out there. If the city of Pontiac said “no,” then their location doesn’t happen.”

The proposed amendment would insert the locations of eight new casinos into the state Constitution, to be located at the Pontiac Silverdome; Detroit; Clam Lake Township, near Cadillac; DeWitt Township, near Lansing; Clinton Township, Birch Run Township, Grand Rapids and Romulus.

“It seems unusual, and it is,” said Nye of adding property descriptions to the Constitution.

The spokesman said Citizens for More Michigan Jobs’ ballot question would repeal and amend portions of the state Constitution at the same time.

Palsrok responded by saying, “We view this differently. We do not amend or repeal the Michigan Gaming Act.”

“We are amending the state Constitution (to) add the additional casinos,” she said. “We are not opening up the separate sections they are claiming we are. We think our language is very straightforward,” she said.

The amendment would also increase the tax on casinos to 23 percent of adjusted gross receipts, and direct 30 percent of the proceeds to public schools; 20 percent to police and fire protection in Michigan municipalities; 20 percent to the communities the individual casinos would be located in; 5 percent to the state of Michigan for road repair and construction; and 5 percent to the state of Michigan for gambling addiction programs.

A goal of the amendment is to send tax money to “programs we thought Michigan residents would support,” Palsrok said.

A gambling expansion in Michigan would create 17,000 jobs to construct and staff the new casinos, Palsrok said: “Our studies have shown that there’s room for more (casinos).”

Nye disagreed. “We’re at a saturation point right now,” he said. “You’re going to have massive layoffs at the Detroit casinos” if new, competing casinos are constructed in the metro area, he said. “There’s not going to be a net economic gain.” There are currently 25 casinos in Michigan, including tribal casinos on Native American reservations.

A section of the petition for a constitutional amendment reads, “All of the casinos authorized by this section shall be granted liquor licenses issued by the State of Michigan to serve alcoholic beverages on the premises.”

Truscott contended the amendment “kind of guts our Gaming Control Act and Liquor Control Act.”

Palsrok disagreed. “Our ballot language does address liquor licenses,” she said, but “folks applying for liquor licenses still have to go through the application process” and “would still have to go through the same rules.” She added that the owners of any new casinos built would have to go through the background checks currently required when applying for a gaming license.

The constitutional amendment could open the door to Internet gambling in Michigan, Nye said, but Palsrok said he is incorrect.

“Regarding online gambling,” she said, “our proposal does not affect it. Online gambling is still illegal, and we have no impact or relationship to any form of online gambling.”